Other

PSX Extreme

Site Stats

Ben's Week In Review: July 20

Obviously, E3 was the big news of this past week, but I've already produced a special editorial designed to focus on that very subject. So we'll tackle a couple other topics, here.

Should Sony stick with backwards compatibility?

One bit of news that came out of this past week has been met with mixed reactions by current and prospective PlayStation 3 owners: Sony revealed they're "not going back" in regards to backwards compatibility. This has certainly been obvious due to the progression of the different PS3 models- the original 60GB supported both PS1 and PS2 software, the 80GB supported all PS1 and most PS2 software via emulation, and the most recent 40GB model only supports PS1 games, but no PS2 games. Sony also announced the new 80GB PS3 at E3, and that one won't have PS2 b/c, either. When asked, Sony's Jack Tretton said that "Sony's collective strategy determined we could afford to lose it," which didn't sit well with some people. It didn't sit well with me, either. I have close on to 60 PS2 games and 40 PS1 games, and I still like to play many of them from time to time. Having one system that plays them all has always been a huge bonus for me.

On the other hand, I do understand Sony's forward thinking, here. They say they want to "make PS2 games for the PS2 and PS3 games for the PS3," and by now, most PS3 owners might not be interested in b/c, anyway. And besides, with the PS2 only costing $130 (and it'll likely cost only $100 in due time), it's not an expensive proposition to have both the PS3 and PS2...if you don't already have the PS2, and 130 million people do. But if they wanted to do this, I still think they should've done this from the start. Because now, when I get a new PS3 - and I'll have to eventually - I'll have to get a PS3 and a PS2, because I got rid of the PS2, just assuming the PS3 would always be fully backwards compatible. You know, like the PS2 was always b/c for PS1 software. See where I'm coming from, Sony?

I feel a little bad for Atari

When I first heard about Alone in the Dark, I was excited for two reasons: 1. there isn't enough quality competition for Resident Evil out there, and 2. as they introduced me to video games, I have a soft spot in my heart for Atari. Now, I know Atari is just the publisher of the game (Eden Studios developed it), but even so, when the PS2 version turned out terribly, I was very disappointed. Everything I had read about the game made it seem promising, and while the concept remains that way, the implementation and execution was awful. I can't imagine the Xbox 360 version with better graphics is worth playing, and I now remember Atari's hope that Alone in the Dark would sell something like a few million units. Yeah, well, with the reviews out there for that game, I just don't see it happening. In fact, the PS3 may never see it, either, which wouldn't be that big of a loss. But at this point, I really don't see how Atari is going to last much longer if they keep producing games like this; have they forgotten what "quality" is?

We're talking about a pioneer of the industry, here, and it almost seems as if they're dying right before my very eyes. I say it's sad. :(

Personal gaming update

Okay, so I guess I'm not done with Top Spin 3. After finishing the season at #1 as a Pro, I figured I'd be watching the closing credits, but nooooo... Now, the last challenge is to win each of the 4 Grand Slams and beat all 8 of the Legendary players on their favorite courts. Well, none of this should be too hard, but it's still going to take some time. I've already beaten two Legends (Nadal and Borg), and the latter I beat without losing a single game (6-0, 6-0, 6-0) although Nadal - as always - took a few games from me. So I'll try to blow through this last part, and I guess by then, I'll have Soul Calibur IV to review. I have super high expectations for that one, of course, but I never play fighting games for very long. Hence, I'll have to get back to MGS and MGS2 or find another game to play. I'm still considering Battlefield: Bad Company but I can't forget about Infinite Undiscovery for the Xbox 360; the new Square-Enix RPG. I really loved Lost Odyssey, and with the complete lack of RPGs on the PS3, I really need my fix.

Let's hope it doesn't end up like Unlimited Saga...but either way, Undiscovery isn't coming until September 2. Hmm...might have to play FFT again! :)

Comments (24 posts)

You don't have a PS3, ben? As for the atari thing, i never played many of their games and if i played them i definitely don't remember them, but i had hopes for alone in the dark and then after reading ur guys review i had a very long sigh. You gotta play mgs4 asap i have a feeling that you'll either beat it on extreme and help those who didnt out *cough* me *cough*, or you'll write an interesting article about cutscenes vs gameplay.

"Because now, when I get a new PS3 - and I'll have to eventually", i thought that meant you didn't have one , but then i had a good night sleep after clocking in 3 hrs in MGO :), and decided that wouldn't help you seeing how your job requires it. As for MGS4, what!. Damn it i kind of was hoping that i would have a whole article of tips for beating it on hard but at last crushed, :.(

The thing about MGS is that you only really need to play MGS2 in order to understand the plot of MGS4.Just finish MGS2, play a little of MGS and MGS3, look up the plot for MGS and MGS3 in the wikipedia and trust me, you'll understand the plot of MGS4 just fine.

I'm really irritated about the b/c issue. Somebody traded in a 60gb ps3 at my gamestop and I almost want to buy it, just in case mine ever gets messed up. They say they can "afford to lose it", but i think it will hurt them a lot.

ben, your commentaries are often insightful and cogent. However, regarding backwards compatibility, it seemed rushed and apologetic. You 'do understand' their stance in disavowing themselves from 'back-comp' seems to be in line step more with a profit/business MO, than with a be loyal to the loyalist that bought your god damn system for $500! We demand that they offer us maximum content for our undying faithful adherence to the brand. perhaps if i owened shares and went to the shareholders meeting! capitalist pigs!!!!!

Maybe we read 2 different blogs, i thought ben said he isnt all gung ho over the decision. He said it would have been ok if thats what they aimed to do in the first place.

But i still don't see whats so hard about holding on to your ps2s. Maybe its just me, but ive always hated trading in older systems because you aren't given much for it, therefore making it easier to hold on to. $30 for my ps2? no thanks, i will hold on to it for older games.

Plus, if you paid $500 for your ps3, then you have B/C, why are you complaining?Last edited by aaronisbla on 7/20/2008 5:16:38 AM

i'm gonna admit to calling myself a big sony loyalist, i have had the whole sony family since ps1 and yes that includes psp, but i know that if sony is saying that they can afford to live without it than they're also saying that we, the gamers, don't really need it along with our ps3. also yesterday i saw a ps2 on ebay for like $60 so i'm guessing that you could really could find someway to get a cheap ps2.

I was in the gaming store i bought my PS3 from yesterday, and they had just 2 copies. That's right, they broke the street date by almost 2 weeks I picked it up for $70. My friends were pissed when they saw that I was playing it while they were on CoD4.

Its the first SC I've owned since 2, and I hated 3 for some reason. To me, 4 took the things I hated in 3 and made them better.

Character creation is still around, but it doesn't let you create from every character. So, no Vader clones or characters based on unlockable or bonus characters, which kinda sucks. Vader's still kick ass though.

Unfortunately it only displays in 720p.Last edited by Rhys Keyne on 7/20/2008 9:27:07 AM

I have posted this a number of time... price is the issue, Sony needs to compete, so they cut features. The problem is there are a good few of us out there who don't mind spending top dollar for top hardware. It would be nice for Sony to permit a custom SKU... i.e. you can order a SKU with all the bells and whistles... I know, it doesn't make economic sense, but really all these different SKU's is just not normal too me.

It is like taking candy from a child. I am still annoyed about it. Anyway, I am on the hunt for a second PS3 and it will be a 60GB model... there are a few going on EBAY... so will monitor the auctions in the next couple of weeks and see what comes up. If a mint one pops up I will bid for it, and at least have a back up I can use... should anything occur to my current one.

B/C-I could care less about the PS3 being backwards compatible...I hardly ever let a PS2 or a PS1 game being played on my PS3. The only time a PS2/1 quality game was ever on my PS3 was cuz I downloaded it from the PSstore and transferred it to my PSP. I STILL have my PS2 for playing the old classics. The PS3 is for all my new games, I didn't recently buy Disgaea just so I can play it on my PS3.
(Not to mention that the PS2 has that perk of playing "backed up" games and imports so its always going to be useful. It also feels weird playing a PS2/1 game on my PS3 so maybe thats another reason...feels awkward I dunno about the rest of you guys.)

Atari- Wow...were they the ones that even said that they expect to sell like 1 million copies or something outrageous like that? Lol, I had hopes for this as well as anyone else...but man...they mustve gotten something mixed up where A was supposed to be B and C was D and A was really supposed to be A like the original guy did...I digress. So...I guess Phil H. didn't do much in the way of helping them...yet atleast.

Bens personal gaming update-Oh and get off Ben for playing Top Spin STILL, when you find a game you REALLY like and have alot of fun with...you play the hell out of it until theres nothing left!!! I remember..hell I'll go on and say it, WE ALL played FFVII TO DEATH!!! to the point where we had beat the game without a guide book. And then went through it again WITH a guide book to see if we missed anything. I know thats exactly what I did cuz I still have that "unofficial" FFVII guide book which was 100 times better than the official one :)
(I'm Still playing SvR08...)

Sorry for the long ass comment XDLast edited by Minishmaru on 7/20/2008 10:02:22 AM

Yea i dont really see why backwards compatability is need for sony fans. We grew up with ps1, and i have 3 that work, two ps2s that collect dust. If you would have bought a ps3 at the beginning u wouldn't worry bout it right. Thats why i bought mine at 80 gig i looked up specs =).

ps1 games i play r just digimon and digimon 3. coz theyre fun.

ps2 games r grand turismo 3.

see think about it u prolly dont even need ps2 compatabilityLast edited by Jizmack on 7/20/2008 1:59:38 PM

Backwards compatability is hard to lose, I do like the idea of my games being upscaled. But I find that I rarely play my PS2 anymore due to the upscaling. A lot of people may feel the same way about it, and more may lash out at Sony for disregarding their loyal customers. Playing a PS2 on an HDTV with composite cables is a bit of a pain cause everything is so blurry.

BTW, does anybody know if using the PS3's component cables reduce the blurryness by a nice bit, or does it just not matter?Last edited by Rhys Keyne on 7/20/2008 2:13:54 PM

Nostaliga is priceless. But if there are no games that you are nostalgic about, don't sweat it. A lack of b/c isn't a loss for you. But if it is, I'm sure you can find a 60gigger or an 80gigger somewhere. Hell, I've seen used 20giggers floating around (though I wouldn't recommed getting one of those).Last edited by Aftab on 7/20/2008 4:22:26 PM

While the giant creature footage from RESISTANCE 2 looked cool, I had some misgivings about it because it looked very much like it was 'on rails' and you just have to do certain actions at certain times.

As for saying I'm not very good at games like MGS4, I should probably clarify- I'm not the best at all-out action titles like DMC or NG (even though I beat them all on the normal difficulty, including DMC3), and with PRACTICE, I can get very good at MGS and Splinter Cell games. But as I've really only played MGS3 to completion and still working on MGS1 and MGS2, I'm not exactly a series expert. :)

I think it's crazy that someone broke the street date for SCIV THIS early! I do expect to see it from Namco...and I'm hoping to get it at least a few days before the retail launch.

As for Top Spin 3, I haven't been playing it THAT long. And besides, with E3 and everything else, I've been really busy lately so I haven't had much time to play anything. You may forget that I have to review games, too, and I consider that work...the vast majority of those games, I have no interest in, but it has to be done. LOL

After SCIV, I'm still wondering if I should play FFT or FFVII again before playing MGS4. I'm getting that old nostalgic feeling, which I tend to get once or twice a year...

Oh, and about b/c- my stance is just that I LIKE the feature, but I understand the business angle of taking it out. Not everyone is like me, and the further we get from the PS2, the more people won't care. That's all I meant by saying I "understood" the decision. I still don't like it. :)Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 7/20/2008 9:43:42 PM

I personal do not like this move by Sony. It is stuiped and dumb. I would think Sony could have cut current prices on there 80gb model if anything else and then they would make even more money. I just feel Sony is kinda screwing them selfs over and over by making these kind of dumb moves, when they could be taking and making smarter moves etc. Bottom line is Sony should keep both models in stores and if anything release a highter end model and have more power to it like a bigger hd to it etc.

Every body should write to Sony and make them know how dumb of a business move this is.

I mean Sony is making loads of money off the 80gb MGS bundle .. so why stop selling it or even stop shipping it in stores etc.

It's a dumb move and I mean heck .. Sony is making more money then Microsoft because there out selling them on there 360's but if Sony does this it will either give them a big low blow or it will help them.

Either way I think they would be smart if they didn't bring out another version of the 80gb model.

I mean after all Microsoft has 3 different models out, one with no harddrive, one with a harddrive and one with a bigger harddrive.

All Sony should have done is bought out a bigger harddrive model with the best game like MGS was, and it will sell at a reasonable price point that is.

Oh well. But I do understand why Sony is doing this, I just think it's a dumb move is all.